Talk:Republican movement (Ireland)

Fianna Fáil

The Republican Party - Fianna Fáil in Ireland has nothing to do with these organisations ? Weggie 14:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The Republican Party is not mentioned anywhere is the article. The Republican Movement comprises the IRA and Sinn Féin, and is in opposition to all "partitionist" parties, including Fianna Fáil. Scolaire 15:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Citation needed

I have provided citations for OIRA, CIRA and RIRA as requested. I got them in a hurry from a Google search (and, in one instance, User talk:Conypiece), and I'm sure it's possible to find better. The thing is, I wrote what I wrote to save the article from being deleted. It's not a good article and it needs somebody (not me, at the moment anyway) to make a proper article with proper sourcing. But it's hardly a secret that all republican groups refer to themselves as "The Republican Movement", and to talk of removing this or that organization really does not help to build this article. Scolaire 21:52, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your sources are not reliable one is to the IRSP website, a group who themselves split from OIRA, the other one from RSF which is a statement on indymedia, they are not un-bias sources.--padraig 21:56, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

They are sources that show that the relevant organization refers/referred to itself as "The Republican Movement". One very persistent editor tried very hard on this article and on Republican Movement to say that CIRA/RSF was the only Republican movement. My current edit is only an attempt to show that the term is employed by, and used for, more than one movement. Scolaire 22:03, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your current edit don't show that as you have all them listed as one group, the initial article had then seperated into the different movements.--padraig 22:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dont think these references meet WP:RS. BigDunc 22:12, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Take the bloody things out, then! Make shit of the article! Excuse me for trying to help! Scolaire 22:27, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Some people think the article is shit to begin with what are you getting in to a strop all I am saying is that I feel the refs are not very reliable I am trying to find some too that can not be questioned. BigDunc 22:31, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Scolaire, coneypiece is arguing that there is only one Republican Movement consisting of all these groups, this is untrue as they are in seperate groups as this article tried to show before it was put up for deletion.--padraig 22:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Irish Republican Movement pre-1986 consisted of:

Irish Republican Army

Sinn Féin

Cumann na hBan

Na Fianna Eireann

various prisoner welfare groups

• Irish Repubican movement post 1986

Irish Republican Army

Sinn Féin

Na Fianna Eireann

various prisoner welfare groups

Another Movement was formed after the Decision to recognise and take seats in Leinster House, this was called and consisted of:

Continuity Republican Movement

Continuity Irish Republican Army

Republican Sinn Féin

Cumann na hBan

Na Fianna Eireann (Continuity)

• Irish Repubican movement post 1998

Irish Republican Army

Sinn Féin

Na Fianna Eireann later replaced by revamped Ogra Shinn Féin

various prisoner welfare groups

Another Movement was formed after the Decision by the IRA to continue its ceasefire and endorse the peace process this was called and consisted of:

23 County Sovernity Movement

Real Irish Republican Army

32 County Sovernity Committee - later renamed 32 County Sovernity Movement

Na Fianna Eireann (Real)

On top of this you also have the:

Irish Republican Socialist Movement

Irish National Liberation Army

Irish Republican Socialist Party

None of this groups are connected to each other in any fashion nor is the list of organisation in each group complete.--padraig 22:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for padraig to prove that they're seperate movements. Anyhow I have requested citations for the remaining groups, PIRA references are needed just as much as CIRA, can't understand why domer48 chose only a few that needed citations. Conypiece 01:22, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Padraig, your hierarchy is fine. Why don't you put it in the article? Then put a tag on the top of the article that says it needs to be sourced, and give people a little space to find the reliable sources. I only put in the "POV" sources because BigDunc said he was going to remove those groups otherwise, and that would make the article incomplete. I personally would prefer to leave it unsourced, but without the silly tags, until somebody has the time to put the work into it. And Coneypiece, of course they're separate movements! Who would want to use five different names at the one time for the one movement? And who would listen to them if they did? Let's stop going on about "proof" and "WP:RS" and try and make an article that says something meaningful. Scolaire 12:28, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with putting in what padraig has on this talk page fairly well covers who I belive are part of the republican movement. BigDunc 12:35, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Scolaire 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Erm, not great, what gives SF/IRA sole claim to the Irish Republican Movement? Anyone? Conypiece 22:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Two separate issues, Coneypiece: (1) make sure that all the organizations are dealt with in one article and (2) distinguish between the movements within the article. All of them make equal claim to be the Republican Movement, but if you see "IRA", "Sinn Féin" or "Republican Movement" without a qualification in any national newspaper in 2007, which movement are they referring to? Hence the logic of Padraig's hierarchy. Scolaire 07:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And how do you suggest that we distinguish between the movements within the article? Considering that all the listed organisations see themselves as true irish republicans... Conypiece 09:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) Well, for a start I suggest that somebody actually writes something substantive. You're just chasing shadows at the moment. If you know something about the organizations in question, write it in the article - that's what editing is - if you don't, leave it alone and hopefully somebody else will. I have said that I think Padraig's hierarchy is a good skeleton to hang the article on: it takes the movement associated with Gerry Adams's Sinn Féin - which as I say is what is always understood when there is a reference to the "Republican Movement" without a qualification in any national paper anywhere in the world in 2007 - as the spine, and the other movements, any of which is generally referred to as a "dissident republican movement", as forks from that. But one way or another, somebody needs to start writing. It's utterly pointless engaging in a long war about an article that essentially doesn't exist at the moment. Scolaire 10:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"The restructuring of the Republican Movement had another inevitable consequence, the removal of the O'Braidgh-O'Connell leadership" History of the IRA Brendan O'Brien. This quote shows that RSF are no longer considered to be part of the Republican Movement. That is two quotes I have given you now Conypiece and you have not provided any to say that the disputed parties are part of the Republican Movement. BigDunc 12:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: surely it would be more accurate to refer to PSF/PIRA/OSF as the Provisional Republican Movement. Also, NFE sided with the Continuity branch of the RM after the split.GiollaUidir 14:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There has never been a movement called the provisional Republican Movement, it is not WP role to invent names, NFE split in 1986, Cumann Na Bhan went with RSF/CIRA, but as most female Volunteers were members of the IRA, the role of CnaB was really mainly restricted to the south of Ireland.--padraig 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

"Provisional Republican Movement" gets 1,990 hits on Google. When you take away hits that are pages on Wikipedia with the term you still get 1770. Hardly a term invented by Wikipedia.GiollaUidir 15:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• BigDunc, erm thats doesn't say anything about what we are talking about here. Oh and also that cannot be counted as the second for you failed to expand the first. And also them two 'quotes' are out of the same book! Now please if you keep insisting that what you are claiming to be 'fact' then there will be a lot more evidence than two dodgy quotes out of a book!Conypiece 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• GiollaUidir, thats a good point, unfortunately the editing brigade refuse to believe that. Conypiece 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
• Padraig, you say there has never been a 'Provisional Republican Movement', do me a favour, explain (and prove) how there is such a thing called the 'Continuity Republican Movement'Conypiece 13:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

What that quote tells me is that O'Braidgh was no longer a part of the Republican Movement. Do you not think so? and "two dodgy quotes" from a book by an author who has reported on NI as RTE's senior current affairs reporter since 1974, and has made 3 major documentaries about the IRA. Also won European journalist of the year 1998 and the Amnesty International Award 2001. Can you please ref something and stop your play acting.BigDunc 02:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

That quote does not say it meant the removal of Rory Brady from the Movement, but it actually meant it was the removal of his leadership (ie his SF position) of the republican movement. Thats very obvious I would have thought. Anywho, after 2 (1 dodgy, 1 pointless) quotes you have still failed to give me a reliable source that you can link to. Oh and also, two quotes from the one source cannot be counted as two quotes. I have referenced something, 6 things, mainly POV's from the other members of the Republican Movement, you have however the task of disprooving their claims, one which you have failed to do so far. Conypiece 20:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

He was out of the Leadership in 1983, thats 3 years before he setup RSF.--padraig 21:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

“Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein president and the pre-eminent figure among the small group that directs the Republican movement…” The Provisional IRA, Patrick Bishop & Eamonn Mallie, Hazell Watson & Viney Ltd, England, 1988, 0552 13337X. --Domer48 21:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Padraig, And? I can't actually find anything to do with what you have just said. Now heres an idea, answer the questions which I asked you over two days ago. I'll remind you; Padraig, you say there has never been a 'Provisional Republican Movement', do me a favour, explain (and prove) how there is such a thing called the 'Continuity Republican Movement' Conypiece 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What you claimed here That quote does not say it meant the removal of Rory Brady from the Movement, but it actually meant it was the removal of his leadership (ie his SF position) of the republican movement. He was out of the leadership in 1983 within the Republican movement, he didn't leave Sinn Féin as a member of the party until he walked out in 1986 to setup RSF.--padraig 21:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I still fail to see your point here. Above, stick in the word leadership after SF in the bracket. Now doesn't that solve your problem. Oh are you going to answer the question above or will I need to remind you again? Conypiece 21:31, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Domer, I didn't ask for a link stating the general 'leadership' asked for a link (a weblink, theres bound to be one if its a fact!) that actually states RSF, INLA etc are not members of the Republican Movement. Conypiece 21:08, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

You have been given a reference; cite one guideline or policy which states that it has to be internet based. Could I suggest a public library, if you have an aversion to buying book? --Domer48 21:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I have not been gave either a full/accurate reference. It does not need to be a weblink, however it does sort of cast a cloud over your idea though. Ah well, ae you going to provide a link now that categorically states RSF are not part of the Republican Movement? Conypiece 21:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Domer, if you cannot answer just say so... Conypiece 16:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Restructuring

@Scolaire: since you have been involved with this is the past, thought it polite to notify you. I have done away with the "family tree" type construction which is better dealt with at Irish Republican Army, and replaced it with the five "factions" within the Republican movement. I realise that the CIRA are in both the Dissident Republican Movement and Continuity Republican Movement entries, but I don't see any other way of dealing with it. Also I haven't included RSF within the dissident entry. That's not to say they aren't dissidents, just that I haven't found a reference that explicitly includes them. I have tried to leave the door open for the term not being limited to the ones listed by using "which includes" at the beginning. Again also I have removed Na Fianna Éireann and Cumann na mBan from the "family tree", due to the fact the Fianna have had Official, Provisional and Continuity variants, and Cumann na mBan have been associated with the Provisional republican movement and the Continuity republican movement. Everything that's left is attributed to reliable references, with quotes included where necessary. FDW777 (talk)

I also realise we probably need an entry for pre-split IRA and SF. Added back now, still requiring a reference but it's hardly controversial. In fact it's probably more controversial if I left it out. FDW777 (talk) 16:40, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: My involvement was 13 years ago and was concerned with (a) preventing the article form deletion, and (b) preventing competing POVs from hijacking it. I have no problem at all with your "restructuring", especially given that, from the time time that August 2007 spat petered out until yesterday, no attempt was made to improve the article. I would just make a few points:

• The "Provisionals" should go above the "Officials", because they were the ones that endured and because they are the ones most associated with the term during the course of the Troubles.
• The whole chapter of Bowyer Bell's The Secret Army dealing with the 1962–69 period (pp. 337–50 of the 3rd edition) deals with the "Republican Movement", taking in both the IRA and Sinn Féin, and is a reliable source for the pre-split movement. The sentence quoted, "But beneath the smooth patina applied by MacGiolla...", is not very illuminating and could be lost (I'm the one who added it, but I can't remember why).
• The 1970s Sinn Féin New Members' Course should be added back. It sets out the relationship between Sinn Féin and the IRA. In Lecture 2 it says "3. Sinn Féin is the political wing of the Republican Movement. Sinn Féin is responsible for the public and political party-type work of the Republican Movement", and "9. Sinn Féin supports in principle the legitimate struggle being waged by the IRA."

Scolaire (talk) 17:04, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll take a look at Bowyer Bell later, when it's safe to venture out into this storm to go to my garage to get the book out of storage. I've explained the removal of the Sinn Féin reference below, I'll put it back in some way just not in a "Taylor is wrong" type explanation, as I've detailed in the section below. To expand on Taylor a little, he's not saying the Republican Movement only refers to the IRA, only that people within the movement use the term when referring to the IRA. He slipped up slightly when failing to take into account Sinn Féin's various periods of illegality, but his basic point is that (at least in his experience) when people say (for example) "I'm part of the republican movement" they do mean the IRA, and they use that term to avoid making an incriminating statement. If they were part of Sinn Féin or the National Graves Association there would be no problem (except for when Sinn Féin were illegal, as mentioned above) with saying "I'm a member of x". FDW777 (talk) 17:12, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with rewording to avoid a "Taylor is wrong" construction. I do think, however, that we need to make the point that Sinn Féin has never accepted it is the political wing of the IRA; it insists it is the political wing of the Republican Movement. Scolaire (talk) 19:02, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Peter Taylor

I've removed the various primary sources that supposedly prove Peter Taylor wrong. First of all, I'll quote what he said in full. Whereas I use the Republican Movement as the generic name for the 'Provos' - the Provisional IRA and Sinn Féin - the term the 'Movement' is used by republicans to mean the IRA. They do not go to gaol for saying they belong to the 'Movement': they do if they say they belong to the IRA. In fact, to the Provisionals, the term the Republican Movement means the IRA - not the IRA and Sinn Féin.

Taking each "rebuttal" in turn.

• A Sinn Féin document is being used to reference the sentence However, a Sinn Féin 'members course' of around 1979 specifically states: "Sinn Féin is the political section of the Republican Movement". Replacing "Republican Movement" with "IRA" as Taylor suggests is the case results in the sentence Sinn Féin is the political section of the IRA. Or, if preferred there is a sentence later in the document which reads Sinn Féin is the political wing of the Republican Movement, which would result in Sinn Féin is the political wing of the IRA. Most references would have zero problem with the accuracy of either of those sentences.

• BBC is being used to reference the sentence Martin McGuinness, interviewed by John Humphrys for the BBC, denied that he was then a member of the IRA but did not contradict Humphrys when he described him as "a leader of the Republican Movement". Now that Taylor's full quote has been provided, there is no contradiction. When asked people will deny membership of the IRA, since any admission could be used as evidence against them in legal proceedings, but they are quite happy to admit to being a member of the 'Movement' for the exact reason provided by Taylor.

• An Phoblacht is being used to reference the sentence Similarly, Francie Molloy, chair of the National Commemorations Committee said that "the growth in the attendance at Bodenstown (the annual Wolfe Tone commemoration) is a reflection of the growth of the Republican Movement." This is from 2007, whereas Taylor's book is from 1997. In the 10 years quite a lot has happened, the IRA committing to exclusively peaceful means and therefore being supplanted by Sinn Féin.

One primary source is not sufficient to label Taylor's statement as a claim, and the other two references have been addressed. I am removing several sentences, and rewording an existing one. FDW777 (talk) 22:59, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@FDW777: Since you re-added the first (members' course) sentence, but not as a "rebuttal" of Peter Taylor, I see no reason why the third (Wolfe Tone commemoration) can't also be re-added on the same basis, as it shows the movement was and remains broader than just the IRA. FTR, I disagree with the quoted sentence by Taylor; I think "civilian" members of Sinn Féin would be insulted to be told they did not belong to the Republican Movement. Scolaire (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't mind it being added back. To me there are two issues, the general use of the term and the use of the term for legal reasons. The Martin Dillon quote on page 24 does go into slightly more detail. The latter is a term which will occur frequently in this book and it is worth defining its use. 'Republican movement' is a euphemism to cloak the illegality of all those proscribed IRA organisations which come under that umbrella term, such as Na Fianna Eireann, the Irish Republican Army and Cumann na mBann (the women's grouping). It is not unlawful to be a republican or to express the republican aspiration that Ireland should be unified. Therefore members of those organisations which are illegal use the term 'republican movement' to mask their true affiliations. So he's essentially making the same point as Taylor. I don't think either of them are saying the term 'Republican Movement' only means the IRA, only that Republicans often use it in a Monty Python-esque "nudge nudge wink wink" way to avoid any explicit admission of membership of the IRA, or similar organisation, which might lead to prosecution. Perhaps we could try and reword to emphasis the point Taylor and Dillon are making? FDW777 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Martin Dillon on p. 171 says Not all those within the republican movement, whether they be members or supporters of the political party Sinn Féin, are necessarily volunteers in the IRA, so both he and Taylor specifically include Sinn Féin in the term. I think the point being made is that IRA members use "the movement" for what you call legal reasons, i.e. to avoid saying out loud that they're IRA members; to Sinn Féiners and the wider public it would still mean the IRA and Sinn Féin. I would be careful of how I interpret Taylor and Dillon. If we were rewording, it would be better to say "Martin Dillon says...while Peter Taylor says...". Scolaire (talk) 14:27, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

For the change I hope to make I don't think there's any interpretation involved. I think changing Peter Taylor, although he himself uses the term to refer to the IRA and Sinn Féin, states that members of the republican movement use it to refer to the IRA only to something like Dillon and Peter Taylor state the term is used by members of the IRA to avoid making an incriminating statement. How does that sound? FDW777 (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine. I would probably add, "since membership of the IRA is illegal." Scolaire (talk) 15:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done I was going to suggest a similar suffix but wasn't sure if it was necessary or not. FDW777 (talk) 16:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Suggested addition

@Scolaire: Out of the Ashes: An Oral History of the Provisional Irish Republican Movement page 201 says (in relation to the dropping of Éire Nua) Sinn Féin was the junior partner to the IRA, and they had some overlapping members, but they were separate organizations. The IRA could not simply dictate orders to Sinn Féin. I think it might be useful to use some/all of this, in particular the part about overlapping members. FDW777 (talk) 12:40, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. It might be useful to mention it to Leo Varadkar! By all means add it to the article. Scolaire (talk) 13:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

 Done FDW777 (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)